kimchi

My goodness, and on a Sunday too!

Spegtacular has posted an update, link below:
(10) Silver bars not testing pure video follow-up! As much info as I have! - YouTube
 
EDIT:
Here's a very brief summary of Spegtacular's comment from his updated video.  Some things may have been missed, or I may have interpreted things a little differently.   So please take into consideration that what I've outlined below may be less accurate than your understanding.   It is recommended you listen to his explanation in full in the updated video.
- there are now 5 bars so far to date that has potential issues
- SGB has tested 100 bars, so far no issue
- Speg has tested his bar (including high relief areas) with no issues.   Jenny's bar (using same testing method) has issues
- Speg acknowledges that Sigma Metalytics machine is not a perfect testing equipment
- potential stress cracks and air bubbles cause the fake reading?   <--- speculation from Speg
- explains why testing equipment like Sigma Metalytics is needed, even if imperfect
- reason for sending out YouTube video vs sending out email; email may not garner the right attention and response from SGB 
- CEO of SGB has reached out to Speg, wants to get to the bottom of this mystery, wants to cooperate
- Jenny's bar was returned back to her because she had agreement with SGB to do an exchange.  So Spegtacular had to return the bar back to her
- in hindsight, could have done more testing, but things happen too fast to think things through
- he supports the silver community, regardless of how you personally view him (pro or con)
- if problems are discovered, it helps to create solutions.  This is better for us, as it creates more transparency
- OK to have differences in opinion, but don't have the hate
 

Spegtacular said in the updated video above, he tested his bar with zero issues.  Even the high relief areas had no problem.  So it's not the sigma metalytics machine misreading.  Only Jenny's bar had issues during the sigma metalytics test.   

Reading YouTube comments, and apparently another person is having the same issue as Jenny.  So this issue does not seem to be a one-off, and potentially could be a systemic problem.  Both SilverTowne mint and SGB need to look into this and fix it fast, it’s snowballing into a potentially serious issue that affects trust and reliability.  
But let’s see the test results of this bar when Spegtacular gets it.  I don’t want to jump the gun; I do want to give the mint and bullion dealer benefit of the doubt.  

No matter which size or specification it is, completing the kookaburra series is a marvelous achievement.

I've recently completed the Perth 1991-2005 2 oz Kook proof set. I also completed the 1992-2009 oz BU set. Well I say "completed" but I'm still waiting for the arrival of the 1995-96 BU coins to arrive in the mail next week. I honestly hoped, but never thought I would complete the 2 oz proof set, much less the BU version. I'm glad I was able to make it happen as I don't know how much longer some of these coins will remain on the market or as easily available given the current climate we live in. I would like to collect both the proof and BU 1 oz versions but I don't know if I will be able to make that happen at this point. We'll see.  

I've finally got the complete 10 oz set of Kookaburra's

I Have a full date run in BU, and a set of all the modern privy's from 2012 to date, P20 Anniversary set and an almost full run of F15's in 1oz. All assembled over time by me

I agree, but  there are multiple issues:
1) Whether any of the bars are / were sub-standard.
2) Whether either of the Sigma testers were producing unreliable results.
3) Silver Bull's interest or lack of it. Only offering refund, rather than an option to replace, does not impress me. If that happened to us, I would want to get the bar back to test and check, and would then want to publish the results. If there was a rogue batch, then publish an alert.
4) Whether Jim or Wall Street Silver were receiving any inducements from Silver Bull, whether this was declared, etc.
5) Yes, Jim does sound like a prat (keeping it polite). This is a well-known syndrome when nobodies acquire a little bit of power.

happens all the time. customer buys a single sample item from amazon. customer finds a problem
(might not even be the product's fault). customer leaves a bad review of findings for everyone to see.
 
what happened to 'the customer is always right'? the situation was handled badly by jim.
jenny had good reason to ask for an exchange.
 
I don't think this would explain it.
do you expect someone to accidentally melt pre 2013 britannias by mistake and not notice the increase
in volume and weight?
imo what's more likely is that that exact bar has some sort of metallurgical fault that 'tricked' the sigma
testing. the assumption is that sigma uses some form of sonic or wave testing similar to an advance
version of a ping test. some genuine silver coins just don't ping properly.
 
HH

not really. no one said it had no silver. some people suspect it might have an incorrect purity of silver.
also it's not just about how much silver does it have, it's about jim's attitude towards customer complaints.
if the replies from jim are actually true then the sheer arrogance of jim(representing wss) is highlighted.
'we can do no wrong' sounds very much like when apple claimed that no signal on early iphone 4 were
because the customer didn't know how to use their phones properly to get a signal.
instead of the simple compatibility issue that it looks likely it was, now it's also 'that's how you treat
your customers?')
 
HH

Thanks for posting that video.
It does not really bring an end to the discussion, but it does add a useful insight.
From the limited evidence of the two videos, I suspect that "Jenny's" bar may have been one of a sub-standard batch.
In the Silver Joker video, the dealer makes the idiotic statement that "the chance of the supplier or manufacturer making a sub-standard batch is zero". While the dealer might be a decent guy, and well-intentioned, he is not strong on logic.
Nothing and nobody is ever perfect (Not even me!) 🙂 (Even though my theme tune is by Eddi Reader and Fairground Attraction)

Thanks for posting the link, it was interesting and entertaining.
It is a pity that @Spegtacular couldn't get the bar XRF tested, although it sounds like he tried his best.
I know you are also a fan of multi-testing, using different testing methods, and you are quite right. Sometime soon, we at @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer must get around to adding a whole lot of other testing facilities. One of the best is actually "years of experience", which is what I used to tell people when I was 16. 🙂
Spegtacular is also correct that fire testing, or cupellation, is still the most accurate testing method for precious methods. It's drawbacks include that it is destructive, and also it requires time, access to a furnace, equipment, acids, and considerable experience. On the plus side it works well in batch or mass use, and that's how Assay Offices can perform assays at very low cost.
Substandard silver bars, or other precious metal items are, in my opinion, more dangerous and more worrying than fake ones.
This blog tells the story of what happened when we got an abnormal result from our Niton XRF machine on a Krugerrand. At first I thought Rand Refineries and the South African Mint were issuing sub-standard coins. 
https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507
The main conclusion: cupellation is best...
Although it seems like Jim Lewis should try copulation, as it is more fun.
 

Maybe this video from the silver joker brings an end to the discussion? 
 

2021 1oz Niue Star Wars - Galactic Empire .999 Silver BU    is out
The second release in the Symbols of Star Wars Series features the Galactic Empire. This coin features the officially licensed Imperial Crest of the mighty Galactic Empire .
Purity 999
Condition Brilliant Uncirculated
Mintage25,000
Packaging Tubes of 20/ Box of 200
   

 
https://www.europeanmint.com/2021-1oz-niue-star-wars-galatic-empire-silver-bu-coin/
https://goldsilver.be/en/coins/3902-niue-1-oz-silver-star-wars-galactic-empire-2021-2.html
https://www.lpm.hk/2021-1oz-niue-star-wars-galactic-empire-999-silver-bu-coin.html
 

One of our forum members, Spegtacular, was banned from Reddit for posting a warning on a silver bar that was tested less than 999 silver.   See below link to YouTube for details:
(13) A silver bar testing less than pure! I was banned on Reddit for warning people. - YouTube
Side note: I have bought both silver and gold from silvergoldbull with zero issues.   All tested 100% valid on my Sigma Metalytics Mini Pro.   I have not purchased the 10 oz Wall Street Silver bar that is part of this controversy.  Was thinking about it, but decided not to.   I probably will not risk buying one (now or in the future) for fear of getting a fake.   
 

I for one don't count the completer as part of the QB set. It is a nice coin I am sure. But the Royal mint shouldn't have released it afterwards. It feels the same as they would suddenly up all the mintages. All this prevents me from buying it or counting it as part of the set. 
 

It's definitely coming acording to the Gazette, and I suspect the mintage won't be limited.  So the price should be similar to other 10 oz QB silver bullion coins.
I'm fully intend to buy one.

Up to date with my swans now thanks to Martin at Silvertrader. 

You need to have a conversation with Steve Hill!     Seriously well done for your work! 👍
Got one for you mate.
2018 Piedfort sovereign.   page 158 (353) just says Piedfort no reference to the 65 privy mark as the pervious mention no(352)
Also the mintage figure is wrong shows 2,750.    RM sales figures 1930.   Also they only ever sold 1930 how come my COA is 2289?  I know the COA are most probably auto generated but mines a number higher  than they sold!
2018 SOTD Georges 5th Birthday (354) plain edge   Book says 457 sales figures show  485 were 28 returned and melted down? 
I have both and more than happy to buy 2 modern sovereigns both with R rating.   
 

The 2021 edition of Marsh did not add many new Die number discoveries to the full sovereign list (p.96).  Today I examined eBay’s listing of full sovereigns but I could only find one unrecorded Die number:
1871 Die 90 (item 333731856361)
Interestingly, the superb Bentley Collection of sovereigns (as stated in the auction catalogue Part 1 in a Table between lots 97 and 98) only added five new Die numbers to an earlier edition of Marsh (in about 2002).  Whilst the Bentley Collection concentrated on quality, I think this does show that it is much more difficult to find previously unrecorded full sovereign Die numbers which is probably because sovereigns have been much more avidly collected than half sovereigns.
 
Also regarding sovereigns, on this Forum there has been a debate about the number of 2018 SOTD of 65th Anniversary of the Coronation Sovereign that were sold.  According to the Royal Mint's 2018 sales page, 650 were sold:
https://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/mintage-figures/2018-dated-uk-commemorative-coin-sales/
However, the recent edition of Marsh (p.163) states that only 323 were struck.  Can someone provide an original reference source for the 323 figure?  Otherwise, this may be another alteration required.
 
Also on p.163, the date for the 2021 95th Birthday SOTD sovereign will need to be changed to 12th June 2021.

As I stated in my original post, the 2021 edition of Marsh has not added many new Die number discoveries to the half sovereign list (p.187).  So, on Friday (30/4/21) I reviewed eBay’s listing of half sovereigns and I managed to spot eight unrecorded Die numbers.  As I don’t have the copyright for the pictures, I am not showing them, but I have listed the eBay items’ numbers:
1865 Die 12 (item 313319460272)
1865 Die 24 (item 164169726902)
1871 Die 68 (item 223622642371)
1872 Die 124 (item 153279604923)
1873 Die 278 (item 324583971493 – listed as 1872)
1874 Die 10 (item 402328242603)
1877 Die 40 (item 153797177047)
1878 Die 50 (item 402636885621)
This shows that discoveries of new half sovereign die numbers can be made and it would be useful to keep a track of them.
As I mentioned in my original post, I have an 1867 Die 2 half sovereign which is unrecorded in the 2021 edition of Marsh, so I am now showing it.

I start by saying The Gold Sovereign Series is a superb book, but it is almost inevitable that omissions and errors will have occurred when such wide-ranging topics are covered.  I think it would be good to have a thread which brings together possible suggested amendments to future editions.  So, I will start off with things that I have spotted.
On p.32, the Matt BU 2019 quintuple sovereign is omitted.
On p.36, the Matt BU 2020 quintuple sovereign looks to be illustrated but it is not listed (only the 2020 proof version is listed).
On p.59, the obverse head illustrated appears to be from the £2 Britannia bicoloured coin rather than from a double sovereign (both the obverse and reverse illustrated show the date “2015” – so this would be a very rare mule!).
Also on p.59, the bullion double sovereigns for 2020 and 2021 are omitted.
On p.96, hardly any new sovereign die number discoveries have been added since the previous edition (I’ve only spotted one).  It would be useful to have a listing in one place of any new die number discoveries.
On p.158, the 2019 sovereign is listed as “normal” (No.355), but there are in fact three types: proof, bullion and Matt BU.  And in 2020 there was a Matt BU sovereign with the GR privy mark (with reeded edge which is not a SOTD).
On p.187, only about five new half sovereign die numbers have been added since the previous edition.  It would be useful to have a listing in one place of any new die number discoveries.  I have an 1867 Die 2.
On p.227, there still appears to be confusion over which half sovereigns between 2009 and 2015 have the letters “B. P.” to the right of the date.  As far as I can work out, the years 2009 and 2010 do not have “B. P.” next to the date, whilst 2011 to 2015 (excluding the special 2012) do.  Do people agree with this?
On p.228, bullion half sovereigns for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 (all with no privy marks) are omitted.
 
So, as you read your copy, have you spotted anything?  Have you any die numbers to add?

He was on that Juice back in the day. 
Ripped

I think they are very attractive and also very cheap for what they are, you can pick up an UNC Gillick for around the price of a new 2021 sovereign, don't mind paying a few quid more.  Hands down the Gillick blows the new sovereigns completely away.  The alloy that's it's made from has a lovely sheen/patina and tones with a lovely reddish colour, some testing has shown the sovereigns of this era to contain 1 part silver and I think this is what give the sovereign its beautiful finish.   Also I do appreciate the craftsmanship that's gone into the die work on the older Sovereigns as a skilled person has actually crafted the die.  The new Sovereign dies are just laser cut 12 at a time in a machine for 4 hours this is why they are in low relief.  On the reverse where the sword passes over the horse looks like it's been badly photoshopped and highlights the limitations of this new die making process in my opinion. 
Collecting for the bullion price v's numismatic can be debated endlessly and ultimately the choice of the buyer, I do have many beautiful Victoria young heads.  I split my sovereign collection into 2 groups.  Numismatic for the gems and semi-numismatic for the bullion/investment and enjoying really great coins for the best value possible I call it "Bonus Bullion".  If you can save/invest money and enjoy doing it at the same time making a hobby from it then it's like getting paid to play golf or go cycling.   
 
Happy to talk 
 
Dave